Documenting EB-1A and EB-2 National Interest Waiver Petitions for Entrepreneurs and Business Professionals Without a PhD

Building an extraordinary ability or national interest waiver case when the record has no citations, no patents, and no peer-reviewed publications

By Youngwook (“Christian”) Park, Partner, Goel & Anderson, LLC

Much of published commentary on EB-1A extraordinary ability petitions and EB-2 national interest waivers (NIW) is written with a researcher or academic in mind—someone with a citation record, a patent portfolio, or a body of peer-reviewed publications that maps cleanly onto the regulatory criteria. Founders, executives, and other business professionals rarely have that kind of record, even when their actual standing in their industry is exceptional.

This does not mean an EB-1A or EB-2 NIW case cannot be made. It means the evidence documentation should be approached carefully, and the case strategy has to account for the fact that an individual’s accomplishments may have to be supported through other means than citations, publications, and awards/patents that identify the foreign national beneficiary’s name. This article focuses on how to identify and document that evidence for entrepreneurs and business professionals under both EB-1A and EB-2 NIW.

Why the Standard Evidentiary Toolkit Falls Short

The ten regulatory criteria under 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3) were not written with any one profession in mind, but in practice several of them—published material in professional or major trade publications, judging the work of others, scholarly articles, and even awards—assume a professional culture where recognition is externally validated through publication, peer review, or competitive prizes. A startup founder or business development executive or professional may have none of that, not because their standing is weak, but because their field simply does not generate that kind of paper trail.

The risk in these cases is not that the underlying record is thin—it is that the case strategy defaults to the researcher profile, resulting in either a weak petition or prematurely concluding that there is no viable case.

Reframing the Ten Criteria Around Business Evidence

Several of the EB-1A criteria translate well to achievements beyond academia once the underlying evidence is identified and properly documented:

• Leading, critical role for a distinguished organization: A business professional’s role at a company can satisfy this criterion where the organization’s reputation and the beneficiary’s specific role in its success are both documented—board minutes, org charts showing scope of authority, and third-party coverage of the company’s standing in its sector all help establish this. To the extent that evidence is available and can be corroborated by reference letters that speak to a leading, critical role, this criterion can be met.
• High remuneration relative to others in the field: Compensation data (salary, equity value, carried interest) benchmarked against third-party industry compensation surveys can substitute for the kind of institutional prestige a title alone does not convey.
• Published material about the beneficiary: Trade press, business media (not only academic journals), and industry-specific publications covering the beneficiary’s work or the company they lead can satisfy this criterion, provided the coverage is about the beneficiary specifically rather than the company generically.
• Judging the work of others: Serving as a startup accelerator mentor, pitch-competition judge, angel investment committee member, or peer reviewer for an industry award program can satisfy this criterion in a business context just as peer review satisfies it in academia.
• Original contributions of major significance: A business model innovation, a product that measurably changed how an industry operates, or a strategic decision with documented downstream market impact can meet this criterion. To the extent that objective evidence is available and corroborates reference letters that speak to original, significant contributions, this criterion can be met.
• Membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement: Selective industry associations, executive networks, or invitation-only forums can satisfy this criterion where the selection criteria themselves require a showing of achievement, not merely dues payment.

Objective Evidence That Exists for Business Professionals

EB-1A and EB-2 NIW documentation for business professionals typically has to be affirmatively sourced rather than assembled from documents the beneficiary already has on hand. Useful categories in the context of business executives and professionals include:

• Company financials and growth metrics: revenue growth, valuation increases across funding rounds, job creation figures, and market share data, ideally corroborated by an independent source (an investor, an auditor, a trade publication).
• Investor due diligence materials: term sheets, cap table history, and investor communications can demonstrate that sophisticated third parties independently assessed the beneficiary’s judgment and the venture’s viability.
• Accelerator and incubator selection: admission to a selective accelerator or incubator program functions as a form of independent, competitive vetting and can be documented with acceptance data (selection rate, program prestige).
• Customer and partnership evidence: contracts or public statements from recognizable enterprise clients or strategic partners can substitute for the kind of institutional validation a citation would provide in academia.
• Media coverage and speaking engagements: interviews, bylined articles, and invitations to speak at recognized industry conferences all document field-wide recognition, particularly where the invitation itself was selective.

This documentation should corroborate and be explained with detailed reference letters that describe the beneficiary’s role. The common thread across all of these categories is corroboration. A pitch deck the beneficiary wrote is not objective evidence of the beneficiary’s standing; a reference letter that explains the significance of an achievement can bridge the gap.

Where NIW Can Be a Better Fit

For certain business professionals, an EB-2 NIW can be a stronger fit than EB-1A, precisely because it does not require a showing that the beneficiary has already reached the top of the field. Under the three-prong framework in Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), the petitioner must show that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance, that the beneficiary is well positioned to advance it, and that on balance it would benefit the United States to waive the job offer and labor certification requirements.

The second prong in particular plays to a business professional’s strengths: education, skills, track record, and a plan for progressing the endeavor are all evidence types that a business record documents naturally—a founder’s prior exits, the traction of the current venture, and a credible business plan can carry that prong even where a comparable EB-1A “top of the field” showing may be difficult.

Common Pitfalls

• Over-reliance on insider letters. Letters from co-founders, investors, or advisors with a financial stake in the beneficiary’s success carry less weight than arm’s-length validation, and a petition built primarily on insider letters invites exactly that scrutiny. While reference letters from sources who have direct, intimate knowledge can be essential to explaining the beneficiary’s credentials, these letters should be corroborated by other letters from individuals who might not have direct insider knowledge. It also helps to have objective documentation that would otherwise have existed even in the absence of an immigration filing that demonstrate the beneficiary’s achievements.
• Treating internal significance as national significance. A contribution that mattered enormously inside one company is not the same as a contribution with documented significance to the field or industry as a whole; the gap between the two is where many business-professional petitions lose.
• Assuming the case is not viable. A thin paper trail is often a sourcing problem, not a strength problem—many of the categories above (accelerator selection data, investor materials, industry compensation surveys) exist but simply were not on the beneficiary’s radar as usable evidence.

Practical Steps

1. Start with an evidence inventory, not a criteria checklist. Ask what the beneficiary’s business has generated—press, investor materials, compensation data, customer relationships—before deciding which criteria or NIW prong the case will be built around.
2. Identify independently sourced documents.
3. Quantify impact. Revenue figures, job creation numbers, and market-share data should accompany any assertion of significance rather than standing alone. Objective data can corroborate opinions identified in a reference letter.
4. Assess EB-1A and NIW in parallel. Depending on documentation, one might work better than the other.
5. Develop a letter portfolio that includes both independent, objective sources as well as those from whom the reference has direct, immediate knowledge. Reliance only on letters from sources who are friends, colleagues, or present/former business partners can suggest bias.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a startup founder qualify for EB-1A without a PhD or published research?

Yes. The EB-1A criteria do not require an advanced degree or academic publication record. What is required is evidence meeting at least three of the ten regulatory criteria (or a qualifying one-time major award), and for business professionals that evidence can come from company performance data, investor materials, trade press coverage, and comparable business-specific sources rather than from academic credentials. Reference letters should corroborate and explain the significance of data.

Is EB-2 NIW easier to obtain than EB-1A for entrepreneurs?

Unlike EB-1A, EB-2 NIW under Matter of Dhanasar does not require a showing that the beneficiary has already reached the top of the field, only that the beneficiary is well positioned to advance an endeavor of substantial merit and national importance. A case-by-case evaluation should be performed to evaluate which (or both) could apply and assess the strength of the case strategy.

What if the company is too new to have significant financial results yet?

Investor due diligence materials, accelerator or incubator selection, and evidence of the beneficiary’s track record from prior ventures can carry a case even where the current company’s financial results are still early-stage.

Do letters from investors, co-founders, or colleagues (past and present) help or hurt the case?

They help when paired with arm’s-length evidence, but a case built primarily on letters from people with a stake in the beneficiary’s success or relationship is vulnerable to a finding of bias. The strongest portfolios combine insider letters that supply operational detail with arm’s-length letters or documents from investors, customers, or industry peers who have no financial interest in the outcome.

Final Thoughts

The absence of citations and patents does not mean the absence of extraordinary ability or a nationally important endeavor—it means the evidence lives in a different set of documents than the ones most petitions are built around. Identifying that evidence early, and choosing between EB-1A and NIW based on what the record can actually support, is the difference between a petition that reads as thin and one that reads as compelling.

The team at Goel & Anderson regularly works with founders and business professionals to identify and document this kind of case, and is available to assess whether a specific business record supports EB-1A, NIW, or both before filing.

This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult with qualified immigration counsel before taking action in reliance on this alert.

© 2026 Goel & Anderson, LLC. All rights reserved.